Is all history mythology?

[SeattleUte]

"History" is as organic and everchanging as the present. Yes, more evidence of what happened once upon a time is always being discovered in our enlightened times. More significant, however, is the phenomenon that we constantly regard and re-evaluate history with our contemporary eyes, which are by definition ever changing with the benefit of experience including but not limited to the discovery of new evidence. Each generation must venerate and create its own take on history. (Arthur Schlessinger, Jr. has written eloquently about this phenomenon.) Moreover, "histories" from antiquity or late antiquity or the Middle Ages were composed sometimes decades or centuries after the events in question. Particularly in the Middle Ages there was not placement of a high intrinsic value on empirical truth that characterizes our modern times. Thus, there is much reason to be skeptical about histories written before the printing press.

Nevertheless, I have read here from time to time an assertion that all "history" is just mythology by a different name in any event, that is just wrong. The motivation for this is easy to see, and the assertion is just plain nonsense and even harmful. At best it's a poor rationalization for the inadequacies of scripture as history or the patently false information in canonized works. (Those of us who do not regard the Bible as "history," but as the best available written evidence of the comings and goings of certain ancient peoples on a macro level that must always be cross-referenced with physical evidence, feel no compulsion to rationalize while greatly valuing the Bible on its own merits, including as a great literary work.) At worst this assertion creates a lack of respect for or rigor in truth seeking, and even tolerance for patent falsehood.

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Nevertheless, I have read here from time to time an assertion that all "history" is just mythology by a different name in any event, that is just wrong. The motivation for this is easy to see, and the assertion is just plain nonsense and even harmful. At best it's a poor rationalization for the inadequacies of scripture as history or the patently false information in canonized works. (Those of us who do not regard the Bible as "history," but as the best available written evidence of the comings and goings of certain ancient peoples on a macro level that must always be cross-referenced with physical evidence, feel no compulsion to rationalize while greatly valuing the Bible on its own merits, including as a great literary work.) At worst this assertion creates a lack of respect for or rigor in truth seeking, and even tolerance for patent falsehood.

Using this logic, what Old Testament events are mythical? Are events such as the exodus, flood, tower, etc. merely figurative and intended as teaching tools?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Requiem

Using this logic, what Old Testament events are mythical? Are events such as the exodus, flood, tower, etc. merely figurative and intended as teaching tools?

I think reason tells us, for example, the Adam and Eve story is mythical. The story of the Exodus provides a good example of what bits of history can be fruitfully gleaned from the text. It may well be that a group of Jews emigrated from Egypt in response to authoritarian oppression or persecution, and wandered in the Sinai for a time before settling in Canaan. They may well have been or probably were led by a great leader; perhaps his name was Moses, perhaps not. (Freud hypothesized he was an Egyptian and his followers murdered him in the desert, and he was in future generations given the status of a martyr; hence the "Father" being the focus of Judaism. But there's no evidence for any of this other than phsychoanalyzing the text.) But reason tells us there was no parting of the Red Sea or burning bush.

Humans' impetus to create myth and the value of myth to humans may be the most facinating subject to study ever (in my opinion). You have identified some purposes of mythology. I would not limit it to that; some may be difficult to articulate or even identify. The need for myth seems to be in our very DNA (Waters has said the same thing about religion; we're probably talking about the same thing at the end of the day).

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Requiem

Using this logic, what Old Testament events are mythical? Are events such as the exodus, flood, tower, etc. merely figurative and intended as teaching tools?

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I think reason tells us, for example, the Adam and Eve story is mythical. The story of the Exodus provides a good example of what bits of history can be fruitfully gleaned from the text.
Humans' impetus to create myth and the value of myth to humans may be the most facinating subject to study ever (in my opinion). You have identified some purposes of mythology. I would not limit it to that; some may be difficult to articulate or even identify. The need for myth seems to be in our very DNA (Waters has said the same thing about religion; we're probably talking about the same thing at the end of the day).

It's all myth - not by its truth or untruth - but by the way these stories functioned in society. The aetiologies in the Hebrew Bible / Old Testament are just another manifestation of certain, basic human impulses that are part of a Mespotamian tradition as well as (generally) universal principles.

James Frazer's The Golden Bough, although in many respects outdated, presents a fascinating comparative approach to myth in ancient societies. Modern religion, LDS included, in many ways, is just another manifestation of certain basic stories (like the sacred tree or the dying god) that repeat themselves over and over again.

Some LDS would say that it's pre-apostacy remnants of an early, pristine religion; others would say that it reduces Christianity to just another pagan religion. Take your pick. Over the past 4,000 years, humans haven't proven all that innovative in the mythic realm.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Solon

It's all myth - not by its truth or untruth - but by the way these stories functioned in society. The aetiologies in the Hebrew Bible / Old Testament are just another manifestation of certain, basic human impulses that are part of a Mespotamian tradition as well as (generally) universal principles.

James Frazer's The Golden Bough, although in many respects outdated, presents a fascinating comparative approach to myth in ancient societies. Modern religion, LDS included, in many ways, is just another manifestation of certain basic stories (like the sacred tree or the dying god) that repeat themselves over and over again.

Some LDS would say that it's pre-apostacy remnants of an early, pristine religion; others would say that it reduces Christianity to just another pagan religion. Take your pick. Over the past 4,000 years, humans haven't proven all that innovative in the mythic realm.

Of course you're right in the narrow sense you identify. In that sense the story of the founding of our republic and of the Civil War are myths, and George Washington and Abraham Lincoln are Americans' foremost saints or gods in this cosmology. But at some point you have to use some jargon or nomenclature to distinguish between what is fanciful and what is arguably fact in the Bible, because this is an important even necessary distinction to be made.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

But at some point you have to use some jargon or nomenclature to distinguish between what is fanciful and what is arguably fact in the Bible, because this is an important even necessary distinction to be made.

I'm not sure if I understand perfectly. I certainly think there's merit in determining the historicity of particular events, if only to satisfy antiquarian curiosity, but it really doesn't matter much to me if certain fantastic or supernatural episodes in the Bible are "true" or factual. I have no way of determining if, for instance, a long ago people tried to build a tower to heaven in some type of pre-historic society. What does matter to me is those who believed this story and how it affected them and their actions.

But, if you're referring to the distinction between this type of supernatural story and the basic historical texts (e.g. Chronicles) that can be somewhat established chronologically and geographically, then sure.

What I'm interested in is how myth affects history. I don't really care if the myth is "true" or not. What matters is how historical persons interacted with their myths.

Is this the distinction you're making? If so, we're on the same page.

I wonder if knowing whether there was a real flood that covered the earth, a limited flood that covered the known earth, or an allegorical flood that never happened would really change people's religious beliefs all that much (other than their belief in the flood). I really don't know.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Solon

I'm not sure if I understand perfectly. I certainly think there's merit in determining the historicity of particular events, if only to satisfy antiquarian curiosity, but it really doesn't matter much to me if certain fantastic or supernatural episodes in the Bible are "true" or factual. I have no way of determining if, for instance, a long ago people tried to build a tower to heaven in some type of pre-historic society. What does matter to me is those who believed this story and how it affected them and their actions.

But, if you're referring to the distinction between this type of supernatural story and the basic historical texts (e.g. Chronicles) that can be somewhat established chronologically and geographically, then sure.

What I'm interested in is how myth affects history. I don't really care if the myth is "true" or not. What matters is how historical persons interacted with their myths.

Is this the distinction you're making? If so, we're on the same page.

I wonder if knowing whether there was a real flood that covered the earth, a limited flood that covered the known earth, or an allegorical flood that never happened would really change people's religious beliefs all that much (other than their belief in the flood). I really don't know.

The slope that believers fear is stating some things are simply allegorical, then belief is not real, just made up, manufactured. Disbelievers find joy in it because anything supernatural is necessarily untrue, not historical.

For example, because we do not empirically witness persons rising from the grave, the empiricist will declare, men do not resurrect. If the historian endeavors to determine if proof exists for this allegation, both the believer and disbeliever are disturbed. The believer doesn't want the core of his belief called into question, and the disbeliever doesn't want anybody to investigate anything which "obviously isn't true" because it can't withstand empirical standards.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

The slope that believers fear is stating some things are simply allegorical, then belief is not real, just made up, manufactured. Disbelievers find joy in it because anything supernatural is necessarily untrue, not historical.

For example, because we do not empirically witness persons rising from the grave, the empiricist will declare, men do not resurrect. If the historian endeavors to determine if proof exists for this allegation, both the believer and disbeliever are disturbed. The believer doesn't want the core of his belief called into question, and the disbeliever doesn't want anybody to investigate anything which "obviously isn't true" because it can't withstand empirical standards.

Thanks for a good explanation.

I don't think this type of deadlock will ever be resolved. At some level, religious participation requires faith in supernatural forces that are just that - supernatural and unexplainable by natural laws. Let the believer believe and the rationalist doubt, but when they debate each other it's maddening since they're not applying the same rules and methods. It's like they're playing cards, but one side is playing blackjack and the other side bridge.

I'm always bothered by the literalist impulse I see in certain Christian sects (and many LDS I know). Today's believers are really hung up on 'fact' [the earthly realm] and not so much on 'truth' [the spiritual/philosophical realm]. These concepts are not identical.

As Plutarch put it, "It is silly to mix earth with heaven." (Life of Romulus 28)

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Solon

Thanks for a good explanation.

I don't think this type of deadlock will ever be resolved. At some level, religious participation requires faith in supernatural forces that are just that - supernatural and unexplainable by natural laws. Let the believer believe and the rationalist doubt, but when they debate each other it's maddening since they're not applying the same rules and methods. It's like they're playing cards, but one side is playing blackjack and the other side bridge.

I'm always bothered by the literalist impulse I see in certain Christian sects (and many LDS I know). Today's believers are really hung up on 'fact' [the earthly realm] and not so much on 'truth' [the spiritual/philosophical realm]. These concepts are not identical.

As Plutarch put it, "It is silly to mix earth with heaven." (Life of Romulus 28)

And for some of the reasons declared by you, I choose to believe, even if it does not withstand pure empirical observation. When the doubts have me against the wall, after examining the balance of good and bad, I can either doubt it all and live accordingly, or believe it in part to an extent that I am benefitted.

So for that part, I choose faith for covering those things which appear contradictory or contrary to reason. It does not stand to reason that a man or God rose again, but in using it in my dialectic, I benefit. It is a good life, even if I believe in things which are not as I conceive them. So the myths, traditions and historical events of our ancestors benefit me today and hopefully in the future.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

And for some of the reasons declared by you, I choose to believe, even if it does not withstand pure empirical observation. When the doubts have me against the wall, after examining the balance of good and bad, I can either doubt it all and live accordingly, or believe it in part to an extent that I am benefitted.

So for that part, I choose faith for covering those things which appear contradictory or contrary to reason. It does not stand to reason that a man or God rose again, but in using it in my dialectic, I benefit. It is a good life, even if I believe in things which are not as I conceive them. So the myths, traditions and historical events of our ancestors benefit me today and hopefully in the future.

Well stated. It is a good life.